Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Takeshita, Junko, MD, PhD
• Wang, Shuwei, MD
• Shin, Daniel B., MS
• Callis Duffin, Kristina, MD, MSCI
• Krueger, Gerald G., MD
• Kalb, Robert E., MD
• Weisman, Jamie D., MD
• Sperber, Brian R., MD, PhD
• Stierstorfer, Michael B., MD
• Brod, Bruce A., MD
• Schleicher, Stephen M., MD
• Robertson, Andrew D., PhD
• Linn, Kristin A., PhD
• Shinohara, Russell T., PhD
• Troxel, Andrea B., ScD
• Van Voorhees, Abby S., MD
• Gelfand, Joel M., MD, MSCE

Titel

Comparative effectiveness of less commonly used systemic monotherapies and common combination therapies for moderate to severe psoriasis in the clinical setting

Ist Teil von

• Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 2014-12, Vol.71 (6), p.1167-1175

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2014

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Background The effectiveness of psoriasis therapies in real-world settings remains relatively unknown. Objective We sought to compare the effectiveness of less commonly used systemic therapies and commonly used combination therapies for psoriasis. Methods This was a multicenter cross-sectional study of 203 patients with plaque psoriasis receiving less common systemic monotherapy (acitretin, cyclosporine, or infliximab) or common combination therapies (adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab and methotrexate) compared with 168 patients receiving methotrexate evaluated at 1 of 10 US outpatient dermatology sites participating in the Dermatology Clinical Effectiveness Research Network. Results In adjusted analyses, patients on acitretin (relative response rate 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-3.41), infliximab (relative response rate 1.93; 95% CI 1.26-2.98), adalimumab and methotrexate (relative response rate 3.04; 95% CI 2.12-4.36), etanercept and methotrexate (relative response rate 2.22; 95% CI 1.25-3.94), and infliximab and methotrexate (relative response rate 1.72; 95% CI 1.10-2.70) were more likely to have clear or almost clear skin compared with patients on methotrexate. There were no differences among treatments when response rate was defined by health-related quality of life. Limitations Single time point assessment may result in overestimation of effectiveness. Conclusions The efficacy of therapies in clinical trials may overestimate their effectiveness as used in clinical practice. Although physician-reported relative response rates were different among therapies, absolute differences were small and did not correspond to differences in patient-reported outcomes.